Issue ads that are nothing of the sort

Updated 4:22 pm, Tuesday, July 8, 2014

An investigation into alleged campaign law violations has not yet determined if Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker can be charged.

An investigation into alleged campaign law violations has not yet determined if Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker can be charged.

Photo: Scott Bauer, Associated Press

Issue ads that are nothing of the sort

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

SAN ANTONIO — The legal controversy that has ensnared Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker involves whether state law permits coordination between the campaigns of elected officials and those of so-called issue advocacy groups.

Here's what you might not know: This is already allowed in Texas.

Prosecutors allege in documents a “criminal” scheme between Walker and these groups during a recall that he fought off. And this is thought to have no bearing on Texas.

But let's break that down.

Those “issue advocacy groups” are some of the third-party organizations whose donors get to remain anonymous in electioneering.

One fiction is that their ads merely expound on issues. They avoid the magic words — vote for or against specific candidates. But the verbal sleight of hand fools no one. They often express direct support for or opposition to candidates.

They are, in effect, direct contributions to candidates, but the sources of these funds get to remain secret. These nonprofits are advocating issues — free speech, you see.

Most Popular

The last time these types of ads were an issue in Texas, we're told, was in 2002. They caused something of a stink. But the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling opened the floodgates for unlimited spending by groups who can indulge in expressing direct support for or opposition to candidates. There can be no coordination with these groups.

But we wonder: If the Supreme Court gives the green light for such coordination with issue ad groups, will we see a resurgence of them here in Texas? Everywhere? Such a ruling is the goal of conservative groups in Wisconsin.

Imagine candidates directing the anonymous and unlimited amounts these organizations raise. Imagine these groups and their donors pulling strings with officials, as if they were puppets.

Texas House Speaker Joe Straus, through a committee, has targeted secret donations but not coordination between campaigns.

In his Citizens United opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy favored disclosure: “The resulting transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and different messages.”

Yes to disclosure in Texas. But if that doesn't happen, voters should be wary of
any coordination between campaigns and
any group that is allowed to collect and spend dark money.